Insert Three Cups Pun Here

Greg Mortenson is a mountaineer-turned-humanitarian, a New York Times bestselling author, and a two-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee.

If we are to believe the recent 60 Minutesinvestigation and Jon Krakaeur’s reportThree Cups of Deceit, he is also a liar.

Last Sunday, the news programme released a damning report on Mortenson, claiming that some of his most inspirational stories in his books Three Cups of Tea and Stones into Schools were either exaggerated or completely fabricated. Moreover, a financial statement from the Central Asia Institute (CAI), which Mortenson co-founded in 1996 and is acting executive director, show that only 41% of funds raised actually went towards schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to the American Center for Philanthropy, a charity watchdog, CAI claims that $1.7 million was spent on Mortenson’s “book-related expenses,” more than they spent on all of their schools in Pakistan last year.

Since the report aired, a flurry of news reports, opinion pieces, and statements have been released. Mortenson’s long-time critics feel vindicated. His fans are justifiably angry. And there are some who still cling to the possibility that the presented evidence either isn’t true, or doesn’t matter.

Mortenson’s response to the investigation has been vague and frankly, unsatisfying. In a piece for the Express Tribune Monday, he wrote,

…the story framed by “60 Minutes” — as far as we can tell — paints a distorted picture using inaccurate information, innuendo and a microscopic focus on one year’s (2009) IRS 990 financial, and a few points in Three Cups of Tea, that occurred almost 18 years ago.

The Bozeman Daily Chronicle cited another statement, in which he emphasized, “I stand by the information conveyed in my book.”

And yet Mortenson also conceded that one of the disputed events in the book — how he ended up in Korphe, where he built the first of more than 100 schools — was “a compressed version of events that took place in the fall of 1993.”

He also has not addressed the troubling revelation that the 1996 photo of his alleged Taliban kidnappers were, in fact, not Taliban at all. One of the men, Mansur Khan Mahsud, is actually a well-respected research director of the FATA Research Center, an Islamabad-based think tank. Mahsud recently told the Daily Beast, “[Mortenson] just wanted to sell books because by 2006 everyone wanted to know about the Taliban and Waziristan…He thought this was a good chance to cash in.”

You may argue that Mortenson’s half-truths and lies were all part of the storytelling process, that his heart was still in the right place, that his intentions were good. But Mortenson ultimately based his entire narrative on a lie. The reason why American housewives and school children alike were drawn to his inspirational story, why they opened their wallets and gave blindly to “save” schoolgirls in Afghanistan and Pakistan was – at the end of the day – a sham. And if he could lie about the very foundation of his success, we have no choice but to doubt everything.

As the dust settles, there is a desire to point fingers and portion blame. Mortenson and CAI deserve the brunt of the anger, for not only veiling the public from reality, but also for using sentimental literature to garner funds, money that was allegedly misappropriated for personal gain.

We should also use this as an opportunity to look inwards at ourselves, at our ability to get carried away by a charismatic personality and digestible narrative, in which Mortenson was the John Smith in the Pakistani version of Pocahontas. Rather than society questioning whether good intentions truly equaled good aid, we gave him a platform, feeling warm and fuzzy for the part we indirectly played in saving schoolchildren. This thinking is endemic of a larger problem with charity and non-profit giving, in which show ponies and personalities often sweep us off our feet. We forget that we must demand transparency, and that we need to go beyond giving, remembering instead to give well. We need to remember the people – in this case the children – who our money should ultimately be going to. This means supporting institutions and organizations that aren’t built on personality alone, but on community engagement and sustainability.

I never donated to CAI, and I still feel cheated. I can only imagine how Mortenson’s supporters must feel.

I had a really hard time writing this piece. I started my research thinking this all couldn’t be true, and sympathizing with Mortenson – I ended with feeling angry that we all so easily get caught up by powerful narratives without thinking of the substance. I still don’t know what to believe and I do think both sides make me wonder what the truth really is – while I think the misappropriation of funds is HORRIFIC and appalling, I think it’s interesting that Mahsud didn’t come out that he wasn’t the man in the picture until now. How did he not know? Also, the fact the Krakauer’s piece was timed to come out right after the 60 Minutes investigation is also interesting. At this point, the jury’s still out, but I’m still a skeptic.

Mortenson’s response to the charges in Outside magazine seemed pretty weak. It may well be that not all of the charges are true, but Krakauer is pretty far out a limb here if most of them aren’t. Krakauer’s earlier books have been harsh on their subjects, but I don’t think known for inaccuracy regarding basic details.

The spillover effects in terms of increasing people’s cynicism could certainly be pernicious.

I agree. At the end of the day, I hope the schools he has helped build won’t be compromised. Because in the storm that this is caused, shutting down the schools that ARE operational is not productive either, and will hurt many who are being educated. At the end of the day, it should push CAI to be more transparent, to collaborate a hell of a lot more, and to BE better. A lot of NGOs could learn that same lesson, esp. in Pakistan.

When the floods happened there were numerous articles written about how Pakistan is not getting enough aid because of perceptions of corruption. Meanwhile, millions have been given to Mortenson over the years while he has been lying and using the donation proceeds for his own financial benefit. This story made me sick.

The story makes me sick too, but again the jury’s still out. Nicolas Kristof wrote this in a piece today:

“As we sift the truth of these allegations, let’s not allow this uproar to obscure that larger message of the possibility of change. Greg’s books may or may not have been fictionalized, but there’s nothing imaginary about the way some of his American donors and Afghan villagers were able to put aside their differences and prejudices and cooperate to build schools — and a better world.”

The gist is: It’s simply not enough to “feel good” that your money is going somewhere to help. We’ve reduced charity to a form of consumerism. Should we really be surprised that people try and make a quick buck off that? Or should we think long and hard about the most effective way in which we can truly help people who need it?

I remember reading the book for a class last year and having to write a review on it. I thought the book was overtly painting Mortenson as a hero and was dramatic to the point of suspicion. To me it also felt like the Pocahontas romanticized story of the white man coming to save the Pakistanis. I can’t say I was too shocked when I heard about the 60 minutes investigation into it, he seemed shady from the start. It’s such an unfortuante case and it is a strong reminder of how important transparency is when running a non-profit organization. I also completely disagree with “the end justifies the means” train of thought. The purpose is just as important, and the limited amount of money actually going to the cause is a clear indicator of that.

If Jon Krakauker said the world was going to end tomorrow would you all take the day off?

Log on to http://www.frc.com.pk/FATA Research Center and type in “Mansur Khan Mahsud” you will find “0” results. He writes for afpak.foreignpolicy.com/

Question: TCT came out in 2006, it is now 2011. Mansur Khan Mahsud has had five years to come forward and call Mortenson a liar and threaten him with a law suit.

But he didn’t. He waited until after Krakauer’s manifesto “TCD” came out to take advantage of the publicity, and has since gone to ground and like Krakauer is refusing to answer journalists (Outside magazine editors have been attempting to contact him for days) questions.

What is more likely the truth is that he and Krakauer put their heads together, since non U.S. citizens know little or nothing about libel law, his statements are likely at the urging of Krakauer who may have his hands full in the near future with a libel case against himself, if not from Mortenson, than from the CAI for loss of revenue because he has gotten many things wrong. He cherry picked data from their financial pages to suit his theory that GM was a fraud. Fraud is a criminal offense that must be deliberate, not done by accident or negligence. Where is the proof of intent?

Outside online has published Mortenson’s climbing partner, Scott Darsney remarks, and he claims he never told Krakauer GM had not climbed in the Krakorum prior to his K2 attempt, and that GM had told him the story about being detained years and years ago.

Jon Krakauer has credibility issues on several of his books, and the fact that he is refusing (as is MK Mahsud) to answer questions about information contrary to his report is not the behavior of an honest man.

Because of recent events, Pakistan can accept far less financial assistance from anyone in the U.S., not just the loss of revenue from CAI, but from our federal government.

Explain this to the school children of Pakistan and Afghanistan in terms they can understand, and good luck with that.